Benjamin Franklin and George Whitefield

Some time ago I picked up a small paperback edition of The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin at Barnes and Noble. It is a part of a series published by that same company under the heading "The Barnes and Noble Library of Essential Reading". Another I have in that series is Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton.

In chapter eight of my edition (chapter ten of the on-line edition) I ran across Franklin's experiences with and thoughts about the Rev. George Whitefield. Whitefield was an evangelical Calvinist whom God used to proclaim the gospel during the period now known as the Great Awakening. He was a contemporary of Jonathan Edwards and the Wesley brothers and along with the Wesley brothers is considered a founder of the modern Methodist church.

This chapter was so interesting to me that I decided to provide excerpts here along with my thoughts. I hope it will be worth your time.

The first excerpt begins now:

"In 1739 arrived among us from Ireland the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, who had made himself remarkable there as an itinerant preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our churches; but the clergy, taking a dislike to him, soon refus'd him their pulpits, and he was oblig'd to preach in the fields. The multitudes of all sects and denominations that attended his sermons were enormous, and it was matter of speculation to me, who was one of the number, to observe the extraordinary influence of his oratory on his hearers, and how much they admir'd and respected him, notwithstanding his common abuse of them, by assuring them that they were naturally half beasts and half devils."

It takes only a general knowledge of Mr. Whitefield's life and preaching to confirm that he was completely orthodox in his theology. What, then, led the church leaders of his day to reject him their pulpits as is reported by Franklin? I speculate it was his methodology which may have been a bit unorthodox to their sensibilities. Or it may have been due to a bit of jealousy, a malady to which many preachers seem to be susceptible. If anyone reading this has a thought, or some clarity to add, I would love to hear from you in the comments section.

I have to laugh at Franklin, though I admire much of his thinking, when I read his viewpoint on the content of Whitefield's preaching. Franklin was a very self-righteous individual, as his autobiography expresses so well. Though he was brought up Presbyterian, he openly questioned many of the tenets of that faith that he had been taught as a child. His personal theology, as expressed in this autobiography, seems a bit ironic to me. He confesses that he could not accept the Christian doctrines on "God's eternal decrees, election, reprobation, so forth", yet he finally settles upon the idea, based purely on his own reasoning, of a God who is benevolent, expects virtue of his creatures, judges sin either in this life or the next, and works providentially in the lives of men. To believe in God's providence, but not in his eternal decree seems inconsistent to me, but somehow seemed consistent to him. I would surmise that this is due to the fact that Franklin was more concerned about personal virtue than about theology itself, viewing the latter as less important. His complaint, for example, about the local Presbyterin minister, whom he supported financially but not with his attendance or other assistance, was that this man seemed to be more interested in making his congregants good Presbyterians than good citizens.

As I said, Franklin was a self-righteous man, believing himself to be responsible for living as virtuous a life as possible, but believing this chiefly because his saw (properly) that a virtuous life was the key to attaining as much personal happiness as possible. To Franklin, a virtuous life was a good life was a happy life and a citizenry armed with this knowledge would lead to the best possible society. Thus, Franklin's gospel was the gospel of virtuous living, attainable by anyone who set his mind to it. Innate to this belief was a belief in the inherent goodness and ability of man to be virtuous. His own personal experiences, as related in a previous chapter to this one, would seem to belie this, nevertheless he perseveres.

All of this leads me to chortle at his reaction to Whitefield's proclamation of the gospel, the foundation of which is that man is inherently wicked. At this point Whitefield and Franklin lock horns and are, sadly, never reconciled. Look, again, at Franklin's assessment of Whitefield's declaration of human depravity:

". . . notwithstanding his common abuse of them, by assuring them that they were naturally half beasts and half devils."

Yet, in this same autobiography, we find that his personal experiences in seeking to obtain moral perfection taught him that (a) he was far less virtuous than he had at first thought, that (b) the struggle for virtue was made more difficult by his own reason which constantly sought to make excuses for his not being as virtuous as he, at other times, wished to be, and (c) that he never was able to arrive at perfection, it being what he found to be an impossible task.

Franklin's view of the human condition was that man was inherently good and should seek to attain as virtuous a life as possible because this was the road to a better life and society. The Christian viewpoint, however, is that man is inherently evil, that unless God supernaturally intervenes he will remain so, and that true virtue can only be obtained through faith in God's grace, because of the finished work of Christ at Calvary. Franklin leaves men dependent upon themselves for goodness and happiness while Whitefield points them to dependence upon God for the same.

Perhaps I shall continue this line of posting and try to get something up more than once a month.

Grace.

Cal Thomas on Episcopals and Baptists

I just read this opinion piece written by Cal Thomas about a week ago and thought it worth linking here on this blog.

Here is an excerpt:

"Inclusivity has nothing to do with the foundational truths set forth in Scripture. The church, which belongs to no denomination, but to its Founding Father and His Son, is about exclusivity for those who deny the faith. The church is inclusive only for those who are adopted by faith into G0d's family. There are more biblical references to this than there is room to cite here, but for the Episcopal leadership, biblical references no longer have the power to persuade, much less compel them to conform. That's because Episcopal leadership has denied the teachings of Scripture in favor of, well, inclusivity, a word that appears nowhere in Scripture. Even if it did, Episcopal heretics — for that is what they are — would choose another word to make them feel more comfortable, since accommodation with the world seems to be a more important objective than the favor of G0d."

And here is the link to the article: link

The Frightening Thing About Health Care Reform

One of the things that frightens me most about this heatlh care "reform" that Obama and Washington are trying to shove down our collective throats is the rumor I've been hearing that my tax dollars will be used to pay for abortions.

If true, this would be abhorrent and unconscionable. I would have to seriously consider civil disobedience. They cannot compel a citizen to financially support something that his conscience and religious conviction abhors.

Can they?

The Dennis Miller Radio Show

My friend, Tom Sawyer, listens to the Dennis Miller Radio Show every day. Our local station only carries the first two hours, but Tom is faithful to it. Myself, I go back and forth between Dennis and Glenn Beck. Dennis is cool and laid back, Glenn is crazy and on the edge. I'm with whichever one fits my mood at the time.

A couple of days ago, Tom posted something about the Dennis Miller radio show on his blog and so the next morning I was over there at that station listening whereas I might not have been otherwise.

In the second hour, Dennis had, as his guest, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. Senator DeMint has recently published a book entitled Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America's Slide Into Socialism. He and Dennis had a great conversation in which Dennis, who is moderately conservative but radically funny, expressed the opinion that he thought Republicans went a bit far when they accused Democrats of being the enemies of liberty. In Dennis's opinion, this came off as a bit shrill. He asked DeMint for some examples of how Democrats sought to take away liberties. The examples DeMint gave were all economic examples. Dennis then wondered out loud if perhaps it would be better if Republicans were more specific in their criticisms by toning down the rhetoric to just "fiscal liberties." Wouldn't it be better, and more accurate, to say that Democrats were seeking to take away "fiscal liberties"?

Then, Dennis opined that he was a reasonable guy, and that, as a reasonable guy, he didn't mind giving up a portion of his income to help the down-and-out. DeMint's reply to that was great. He told Dennis that in his (Demint's) opinion, Dennis could do more to help the needy if he (Dennis) could keep his own money and distribute it himself rather than sending it to Washington.

(I wholeheartedly agree with Senator DeMint.

And, before I forget, let me add that it was primarily "fiscal liberty" over which the Revolutionary War was fought. All that soaring rhetoric about liberty which emanated from the pens and political stumps of our founders was first and foremost about "fiscal liberty." But I digress.)

That's when Miller ended the conversation by noting that he would be glad to disperse that money himself, but that he would have a hard time doing it from behind prison bars, which is exactly where he would be if he did not send his money to Washington.

Commercial break.

That's when I decided to call . . . and got through. Yes, I was shocked at how easy it was. The call screener asked me my name, where I was from, and what I wanted to say to Dennis. Two minutes later I was on the air.

Eat your heart out Tom Sawyer.

I was probably the worst caller of the day because I was so nervous. I tried to point out to Dennis that the good Senator DeMint and he had hit right on the crux of the issue with the whole "do what you want with your own money/but you can't do that from prison" exchange. This is what tyranny is, it is telling people that you (the government) know better what to do with a given individual's money than that individual and that if that you are going to take that individual's money (which represents his hands, his mind, his time, his risk, his work, his very worth) by threat of the sword and do better things with it than he can. The individual no longer works for himself and his own and his God. He now works for government so government can distribute to the collective. By-bye liberty.

I didn't do very well at expressing that on the radio, but I did pay Dennis a couple of compliments and he was able to turn them into very funny lines. I had an adrenaline rush for about two more hours and my wife was very, very impressed with me. I will certainly try calling again and maybe next time I'll do better.

Government and Tyranny

A cyber-friend who goes by the handle of One Salient Oversight has done me the kindness of answering one of my posts here in the comments section of that post. Since he is quite possibly my only reader at this point, and since my response to his comment became quite lengthy, I have opted to bring it out here to the front page. OSO is an Aussie, a nice guy, and a guy who knows how to disagree graciously. I hope I can return his graciousness and that we can both profit from our discussion.

OSO is a big-government liberal and our disagreement concerns the nature and purpose of government.

First let me quote him, then I'll respond.

OSO wrote: One counter-argument from the top of my head concerns sin. Sin affects both the individual and the community. To argue that the Biblical direction is more individualistic is to argue that the sins of the many outweigh the sins of the few (in a per capita sense). I would argue that sin affects both equally.

That's not my argument. My argument is that because of our sin nature, power tends to corrupt. I firmly believe the maxim: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Though there are exceptions to the rule, history is replete with individuals who sought power for power's sake so that they could use it to tyrannize others. Give sinful man that much control over others and he tends to abuse it.

Think about it this way. Government is only necessary because of sin. Before sin, there was no need for the ten commandments. Man had God's law written on his heart, he obeyed willingly. When men sin government becomes necessary in order to execute justice and this is government's primary purpose.

The founders of our country believed this for they wrote about a Creator who had endowed us with certain unalienable rights and then they went on to delineate government's responsibility in protecting those rights. Government is about protecting the individual's liberty so that he may live free and be judged by God for how he lived in that final day. Every man's life is his own and he is responsible to God for how he lived it. It is imperative, therefore, that he be free to live that life as his conscience dictates and be judged by the just judge of the universe in that final day.

But, I've strayed. The point is that because of sin, men who have power tend to be corrupted by it. Governments, in reality, serve to perpetuate their own power and increase it. Governments never naturally shrink, they naturally grow.

Why is it that you think that you know better how others ought to live their lives than they do? And if you do, what gives you the right to enforce your viewpoint on them? You can, and should, seek to persuade men. You can, and should, take moral stands and proclaim truth and righteousness. But when do you get the right to enforce your viewpoint on another via the sword?

It is Charles Spurgeon who is credited with saying "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." This is why the marriage of church and state is a great evil. It does not make Christians of men, it only makes hypocrites and increases rebellion. Men who are born of God worship him freely.

We have every right to persuade men to come to Christ. We have no right to enforce our theological viewpoint on them. By the same token, we have every right to persuade men to give to the poor, but we have no right to reach into their pocket, take their hard-earned money, and give it to someone who has not earned it. If your name is not Government, that is called robbery and will get you in jail. Why do we think a crime can be made into a virtue by majority vote?



If I have money beyond what I need for my family, money I have earned by my labor and God's grace, and God gives me opportunity to give to another who is in need, and I do so, that is a virtuous act. God is glorified in that. But if I then go to my neighbor and by threat of physical violence compel him to give of his means to help someone else's need I have committed a grievous sin, a crime. But this is what socialist government does.

If I don't pay my taxes the government will put me in jail. But what does the government do with my money? It redistributes it to others. Gone is any virtue in my giving . . . because I was forced. Gone is any choice I had in where and how and to whom I should be charitable. Gone is my expendable income and any opportunity I might have to actually help others whom God might send across my path.

And what right do others have to tell me what to do with my money anyway? More to the point, what right does any given majority have to enforce its viewpoint on any particular individual on how he ought to use his money to help others? This is tyranny. It is the opposite of liberty.

Here's what the majority should do. It should seek to peaceably persuade others to commit acts of virtue freely, after having practiced those virtues themselves. Gone is the greedy, corrupt, wasteful, power-mongering middle-man called government. Intact is liberty. Intact is genuine charity. Intact is justice. Socialism destroys all three.

I have rambled on so far that I have forgotten my original point, but I think it was this: men are by nature corrupt, therefore their power over others should be very limited and very local and they should be held very accountable for their use of that power. The larger and more centralized a government is, the less it can be held accountable and under control.

Corporations Don't Pay Taxes

It's one in a long line of stupid, leftist, class warfare mantras often repeated by leftist, socialist politicians along with their leftist, socialist propagandists in the main-stream media. It usually goes something like this: "We're going to make those big corporations pay their fair share. It's about time somebody stood up to big tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals, fill in your favorite villainous capitalistic enterprise here."



And people buy it.

My friend Tom Sawyer at The River is a lot less charitable to Democrat voters than I am. He thinks they are all stupid. While I don't agree, I have to admit that the fact that this little ploy always seems to work makes me wonder if Tom is right.

Corporations don't pay taxes.

I know, I know, I know. You point out to me that they collect and pay sales tax. Yes, they do. They also are responsible to pay a lot of other taxes in the form of fees and regulatory sanctions most of which we don't even know about.

I know.

But I'm still telling you that corporations don't pay taxes. Now, think with me for a minute.

One, corporations are not amorphous, impersonal entities. Corporations are owned by individuals. A tax on a corporation is a tax on the individuals who are shareholders in that corporation. Some of them are businessmen. Many of them are simply people who have retirement money wrapped up in mutual funds. They are teachers, doctors, factory workers, small business owners, salesmen, tradesmen, you-name-it. Average Joes. Raising taxes on a corporation is raising taxes on average Joe.

Two, a tax on a corporation doesn't just affect the shareholders, it affects the employees. Money that could have been used to give pay raises, bonuses, vacation pay, health benefits, you name it, to employees must now be diverted to the government. Hit the corporation with new taxes and you are just taking money away from the people who work for that corporation.

But number three is the real kicker. I really want you to pay attention to number three.

Three, when you tax a business, that business simply passes the tax burden on to the consumer in the form of cost increases. This is such a no-brainer I don't know why I even have to post about it. When the federal government taxes "Big Oil", "Big Oil" just raises prices at the pump and guess who has to pay those tax increases on "Big Oil"? Yep. You do.



When you voted for a Democrat so he could make "Big Oil" pay its fair share you really socked it to "Big Oil" didn't you.

Big Government Liberal?

A cyber-friend of mine posted an interesting piece on one of his blogs a few months back and since I am way out of the loop I just read it a few minutes ago. This friend is politically on the left while at the same time he has an evangelical faith. Those of you out there who are secularists might not be able to grasp that one, specifically those of you who think the term 'evangelical' is a political rather than a theological term. I'm not sure how this anomaly occurs (that of being an evangelical and a leftist) but I am almost certain it has to do with some sort of regressive genes and perhaps if our good friend Richard Dawkins were here he could explain how it might be a positive step in the evolutionary process.

(smile)

Anyway, here is what my friend One Salient Oversight wrote (I blanked out specific names of specific individuals because they were unimportant to the discussion at hand):

"I am not saying that my political stance is the way to go. One of the basic reasons of the disagreement between (...) and I is over politics. (...) is the small government is the only solution type. I am far more leftist in that regard and think largish government supported by higher taxes is a good thing. If that was all it was then I would have no problem with (...)'s politics. The problem with (...) is that he has taken on small government as being biblically taught. (...) therefore not only thinks that his political position is right, but also biblically mandated. That is where (...) and I differ. While I have leftist beliefs that I think are great there is no way I would argue that my position is biblical because neither position is backed up in scripture. Political ideology is one area that the Bible is broadly silent on and which therefore gives believers freedom to choose. (...) has taken an area of life that Christians are allowed liberty to choose in and turned it into a black/white biblical/unbiblical issue. Many of my disagreements with him have been about this very thing. I will expand this idea as I post about it."

First, let me say that I don't go to (...)'s blog, don't read what he writes at other blogs, frankly have never found him that compelling when I did read him (once upon a time), and have no desire to defend anything he has written. But what my friend OSO says in the quotation above intrigues me and I want to address some of it. Here goes:

"I am not saying that my political stance is the way to go. One of the basic reasons of the disagreement between (...) and I is over politics. (...) is the small government is the only solution type.

I, too, am a small-government-type. I don't arrive at that position by way of pragmatism, however, although I could. I arrive at it by way of principle. I believe small, decentralized government is the only way to go and that large central government is, by nature of the beast, always bad. Not that the concept is inherently bad, but that it always turns out bad due to the nature of the individuals who people it.

OSO goes on:

"I am far more leftist in that regard and think largish government supported by higher taxes is a good thing.

I find this interesting how we have almost come full circle on this left/right thing. Back in Thomas Jefferson's day he was considered a radical leftist because he championed the individual over government and thought big government was equal to tyranny. He is/was a classical liberal. Today, his position is held by no one on the American left. Modern liberals champion big government while individual liberty and Jeffersonian democracy were best represented in this last century by the Republican conservative Ronald Reagan. So in a weird twist of irony I am a classical liberal, aka conservative, while the big government conservative types of Jefferson's day find their ideology represented today on the American left.

OSO continues:

"If that was all it was then I would have no problem with (...)'s politics. The problem with (...) is that he has taken on small government as being biblically taught. (...) therefore not only thinks that his political position is right, but also biblically mandated. That is where (...) and I differ. While I have leftist beliefs that I think are great there is no way I would argue that my position is biblical because neither position is backed up in scripture. Political ideology is one area that the Bible is broadly silent on and which therefore gives believers freedom to choose. (...) has taken an area of life that Christians are allowed liberty to choose in and turned it into a black/white biblical/unbiblical issue. Many of my disagreements with him have been about this very thing."

Again, I have no desire to either learn or defend the positions of the individual cited above. But I think it is necessary to point out that I believe that a biblical world-view, consistently applied, will lead one to a position of favoring individual liberty to a large extent over big government. Government was instituted by God and some government will always be necessary. How much government is the question at stake and I do believe that my position is more theologically sound than that of One Salient Oversight. I would like the opportunity to expound upon that over time. I am sure that he will afford me that opportunity as well as give me the grace of responding thoughtfully to what I write.

And, I guess that means I am blogging again--but only sporadically.

Edmund Morris and Theodore Roosevelt

You may have heard of Edmund Morris. He was the official biographer of Ronald Reagan, hired by Ron and Nancy after writing the Pullitzer Prize winning The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. His eventual biography of Reagan, Dutch, was a controversial, some say reprehensible, flop. He was criticized by liberals and conservatives alike and himself confessed that he never really understood Reagan at all--this after having spent fourteen years with him and having complete access to all his papers, files, and correspondence. His style was a self-described post-modern new style of biography where he made up a fictional narrator (himself) and apparently made up a lot of other stuff too. In short, the book was horrid. Others have done much better with Reagan's life and presidency.

Yeah, that Edmund Morris.

I absolutely loved The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and hope that some of you might read it too. You will fall in love with Teddy's character as the quintessential American and gain an appreciation for him even when rolling your eyes at some of his ideas and actions. The book paints a stunning portrait, stroke by stroke, of TR the man. While reading I wondered if TR wasn't a bit manic, but those eccentricities which led me to think that are also the bits that endeared me to him. Roosevelt comes off as a compelling contradiction, being on one hand an intellectual snob and on the other a leader and companion of the "rough riders."

I am now a few chapters into Theodore Rex, published twenty-two years after the first, but it feels like I have picked right up where I left off. The Rise gives us the story of TR from birth until right before his ascension to the presidency in 1901. Rex chronicles his two terms as President. If anything, the writing style has improved in the sequel (I wish I could write that well) and, though my reading time is limited these days, I plan to finish off its 600+ pages by Christmas. There is a planned third volume which will complete the "trilogy" and I hope Mr. Morris is working on it.

A Prayer of St. Augustine

Passing time each morning (most mornings) with St. Augustine has been a joy for me this year and, I hope, a benefit. Augustine is probably not the typical Baptist's cup of tea, but I like going outside the norm in my reading. Augustine takes me back to the dawn of Christianity and allows me to delve into the thinking of the early disciples. I view The Confessions of St. Augustine as an archaeologist might view an ancient ruin. It beckons with hidden promise of rich discovery.

Two things stand out to me in Augustine's Confessions. One is humility, the other is faith. I know that I could use more of both.

This morning I read this:

Let me know Thee, O lord, who knowest me: let me know Thee, as I am known. Power of my soul, enter into it, and fit it for Thee, that Thou mayest have and hold it without spot or wrinkle. This is my hope, therefore do I speak; and in this hope do I rejoice, when I rejoice healthfully. Other things of this life are the less to be wept for, the more they are wept for; and the more to be wept for, the less men weep for them. For behold, Thou lovest the truth and he that doth it, cometh to the light. This would I do in my heart before Thee in confession: and in my writing, before many witnesses.--Confessions of St. Augustine, Book Ten, chapter 1.

(Scriptures referenced: 1 Cor. 13:12; Eph. 5:27; Ps. 116:10; Ps. 51:6; John 3:20)

There is meat in that.

Liberal Coffee

I feel so good about myself today. You see, I start off each morning with coffee--good coffee--usually Distant Lands coffee purchased at my local grocer and brewed from whole beans. Coffee is important to me. I enjoy it. I thank God for it (and that goat-herder in northern Africa who discovered it). It gets me going.

I usually maintain a strict "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to the politics of my coffee. I find it easier to drink it this way. Just like with my favorite Hollywood actors, I would prefer not to know or hear their political leanings because, well, sometimes it can be scary. I like to remain blissfully naive on these things. Who wants to learn that their favorite character in a movie was portrayed by some marxist sympathizer who thinks, for example, that America should be more like Fidel Castro's Cuba? No, I'd rather just like the guy and not know anything about him.

The same goes with my coffee. I don't ask it what it thinks about capitalism and it doesn't try to raise my taxes or put me on the government dole. We just enjoy each other's company.

But this morning when I went for the coffee beans I remembered that the bag was empty. The poverty I felt at that moment had a Dickens-like character . . . enough to make a good capitalist's blood run cold.

So I made my way to work without my morning brew, vowing to stop somewhere where I could get something with some strength and fortitude, some flavor, some substance.

Something real.

Have I mentioned that typical American coffee like, say, Folgers or Maxwell House is embarassingly weak? Drinking that meager fare is akin to pouring food coloring in hot water. Seriously. American coffee, for the most part, is like half-coffee. I could not settle for that.

So I stopped at Starbucks.

I got a grande Sumatran blend and a bag of whole bean Ethiopia Sidamo. Oh, and a coffee mug for the road--liberal coffee.

I feel so good about myself now. I've probably saved a rainforest, done my part to encourage fair trading practices, helped put a long-hair through Berkeley, and, oh yeah, even built a bridge in Ethiopia to help farmers get their beans to market.

Man, what a guy I am!

I feel like Sean Connery in Medicine Man, like I'm making a difference in the world.

I bet Bush doesn't even drink coffee. The Nazi!

So if you really care about the earth, the poor, saving the rainforest, curing AIDS, fair trade, and making the world into a worker's paradise and all that, start your morning off right . . . like I do . . . with some liberal coffee!

The Theology of Atheism

Random, unorganized thoughts on a rainy morning while I drink my coffee.

Atheism is a theological position.

I thought it wouldn't hurt to take a break from politics for at least one post and this thought has been in the back of my head for some time now so we'll see if I can manage to spit it out this morning in a coherent way.

Again, atheism is a theological position. I feel like it has to be said because many of the atheists I have come in contact with seem to be in denial of this. They think of themselves as a-theological or supra-theological.

"Theology?" they say. "That's for children. I believe in science and facts. I don't need theology." When challenged on the fact that they are theologically ignorant their trite response is usually something like "Why would I need to study theology to tell you I don't believe in God? Do I have to read all the books on fairies to tell you I don't believe in them? Or do I have to study Santa Claus to legitimately claim that there is none?"

Sounds cute, but it is woefully ignorant. To say that one is an atheist is to take a theological position. Everyone is a theologian. Any statement about God is a theological statement. For example, to state "I am an atheist and Christians are fools" is to make a theological statement. So when individuals choose to make theological statements but then refuse to back them up with theological arguments or at least to give themselves a cursory education in the field they are being stubbornly ignorant. They don't want to be challenged.

Oh, they may not mind making a sport of drive-by rhetorical sniping. They may enjoy strong verbal salvos aimed at those they deem ignorant. But many times those they deem ignorant at least have some knowledge of the topic at hand . . . theology.

All of this reminds me that I have a discussion to get back to with a fine gentleman from Scotland on the fundamentalist forums, a gentleman who by now is probably thinking the same about me (about the drive-by rhetorical sniping).

It also reminds me that I was reading a book by Professor Richard Dawkins, a quite interesting book that I need to get back to. I was enjoying it and I'm not sure what happened. I think I got more interested in my Teddy Roosevelt biography and laid the other aside.

Soon.

Obama and the Least of These

I told you, I told you, I told you! I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet but isn't it uncanny that on Saturday morning here in east Texas I was telling you how socialists historically have misused Matthew 25 to promote a socialist agenda and that very night Barack Obama goes to Saddleback Church and does that very thing? Shouldn't I get an award or something? Check out this short video:



A couple things:

First, Christ, in the passage in Matthew 25, is not addressing a secular society, he is addressing his Church--a Christian society. It is the Church's job to care for the poor and do ministry in Christ's name, not the government's. Charity belongs in the private sector where it is done much more efficiently by self-sacrificing people who have love for Christ and others as a motive. When government does "charity" it must take the money it uses from citizens whom it threatens with the use of force and then give it to others. Those involved too often have power and control as their motivation, not love for Christ--and power naturally corrupts.

Second, America does care for its poor. My goodness, in comparison to the rest of the world we don't even have any poor. America feeds the world, cares for people who are stricken with disease and disaster, is always first to send aid to other countries in need. Always. For Obama to imply that we do little is ludicrous. Furthermore, we do it freely, through private organizations, we don't need the government to act as a middle-man. Americans are the most generous people on earth.

Third, America's greatest moral failure is abortion. Period. Up until this century it was slavery and oppression of minorities, but that has been addressed in large measure. Lincoln ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation and a hundred years later the Civil Rights Act went a long way toward ending institutional injustice against African Americans. That moral failure was addressed and that is something to be proud of as Americans. But abortion is worse. It takes an entire class of citizens and, instead of just enslaving them--stripping them of their God-given rights based on nothing more than color of skin--it says to them they have no right at all, to even live. It takes their life for the most inexcusable of all reasons--convenience. It is repugnant, repulsive, barbaric. It is heinous. But to the left, and to Obama, it is defended as a "right."

Do you think maybe "the least of these" as referred to by Jesus might include the most vulnerable of those in whom God has breathed the breath of life--the unborn? What will the Great Judge of all the Earth have to say about those who had it in their power to pass legislation and end the holocaust against the unborn and did not, in fact, acted to sustain the holocaust and even protect it? And what about those, like Obama, who even acted three times in the Illinois state Senate to kill bills that would have outlawed infanticide?

Your greatest moral failure, Mr. Obama, was not drugs or alcohol. It was acting to protect abortion and infanticide (a redundancy, in my opinion) when you had it in your power to work toward outlawing them. Shame on you and shame on us and shame on the Democrats.

Obama references our Scripture!

Saturday night while no one was watching Obama and McCain both appeared at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church for a forum. Obama appeared first, answered questions from Warren, then left the stage for McCain to repeat the process. During his answers Obama made reference to the Scripture that I cited in my last post on the evils of socialism and used it to do exactly what I told you that 19th century evangelicals used to do with it. I have to leave for work now, but as soon as I can I will find video of it and post it here along with comments.

Uncanny.

Legally Sanctioned Robbery

Governmental redistribution of income (socialism) is legally sanctioned robbery.

It is interesting to note that a large portion of the early socialist movement in England (mid to late 19th century) was made up of evangelical Christians. Their arguments were that as a society we were obligated to care for the poor and the downtrodden. This was both a logical extension of Christian theology and an integral and practical part of the Christian faith mandated by Christ himself.

Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

As a Christian society we are to care for the poor.

There are several problems with that and I hope to deal with each of them. They are, in no particular order:

(1) This is a mandate for the Church, not the state. "Christian society" does not equal society as a whole.

(2) What Christ mandates for the Church is rightly responded to by heartfelt agreement and submission by his disciples. In this case, the result is what we call charity--voluntary giving out of love for Christ and others (the two greatest commandments). By definition, charity cannot be forced. When it is, as in the case of governmental redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots", it is not charity at all and thus not obedience at all.

(3) It violates the fundamental economic principles of justice taught in the rest of Scripture, principles such as "the laborer is worthy of his hire" and "if a man does not work, neither should he eat."

Let's look at the third briefly:

If I were to go to each of my neighbors and ask them to give to a worthy charitable cause this would be a laudable use of my time and energy. Some of my neighbors would likely give and they would be following the mandates of Christ in doing so. Others would not give for various reasons and this does not necessarily mean they are disobeying Christ, again for various reasons (maybe they gave at the office)(smile).

Understand, however, that there is a principle involved here that is fundamental to justice and the maintenance of a just society and it is this: money earned by an individual rightfully belongs to that individual, not to anyone else and not to society as a whole. It is that individual's right to do with that money as he wishes. When someone else takes that money by either force or deception we call that a crime. It is an injustice.

So let's go back now to my example but change it just a little. What if I go door to door to all my neighbors and instead of asking them to give voluntarily to a good cause I threaten force against them unless they hand over a certain portion of what is theirs to me so that I can give it to other people. What would happen? The police would be called and I would be thrown in jail. Why? That's called robbery and is punishable by law in every human society since the beginning of time.

Except when government does it in a socialist society.

Why is it that government can do what would be a crime if an individual did it? What right does one individual have to force another individual to do what that other individual wishes with the first individual's money? None. I have no right at all to force you to do anything with your money. It is yours. However, for some reason we have been conditioned to believe that it is okay for government to decide what individuals should do with their own money, for government to take that money by force away from its rightful owner and give it to someone else. Socialism is legally sanctioned robbery. It is a fundamental injustice and a violation of individual liberty. It is our God-given right to keep what we earn and do with it as we wish. Our obedience to God's commands and submission to Christ's mandates must be voluntary or they are not obedience or submission at all.

This is not an argument against all taxation. There are certain things that government must do to protect our liberties and those things require the equal support of all citizens, but re-distribution of wealth is not one of them. Socialism is an unjust and blatant misuse of governmental authority. It is robbery and it is tyranny.

The Death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Alexander Solzhenitsyn died this past Sunday. Don't know who he was? Don't feel bad. Neither did I. But after reading a bit about him on Al Mohler's blog I now have some new books added to my wishlist.

Texas Stands Tall

It is sad when anyone dies. It is sadder still when someone is cut off at a young age, an untimely death, as it were. What is even more sad is when the ones who die at a young age are the victims of a senseless act of evil. That was the case with Elizabeth Pena (16) and Jennifer Ertman (14) who were gang-raped and brutally murdered fifteen years ago in Houston, Texas.

One of the culprits, Jose Medellin, was executed for his part in the crime last night.

Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

It is not surprising to hear that Texas has executed another criminal. As Eustace would say, we do that round here. What does grab your attention is when Texas snubs its nose at Mexico and the world to do it.

Thank God for Texas. No wonder I live here.

The World Court had argued that Medellin, a Mexican national (he was here illegally, his parents having crossed over illegally when he was three), suffered legal harm when he was not informed of certain rights he had under the Vienna Convention. Mexico's Foreign Relations Department had sent a note of protest to our State Department regarding Medellin's case.

Our State Department responded back that he should not have been here illegally in the first place and the Mexican government should concern itself with that fact as well as the other fourteen gazillion illegals who are over here.

I wish.

No, in response, the President asked the states who are currently holding Mexican nationals on death row to review those cases. But the Supreme Court ruled that neither the President nor the World Court could intervene on the sovereignty of Texas and force it to delay the execution.

Duh.

What's scary is that there was ever a doubt, that this battle ever even had to be fought.

But Texas stood tall and when the time came Medellin was given his lethal injection and justice was served.

Mexico can go jump in the river (those who haven't already). If the Mexican government weren't so woefully inept and corrupt and cripplingly socialist the people wouldn't be fleeing here in droves in the first place. Take that Mexico's Foreign Relations Department.

People Are Listening to Obama

There is hope for America yet. Change is no longer just a slogan, it is becoming reality. Can you feel the electricity in the air? Those aren't goosebumps, those are Obamabumps. It's the power of inevitability that is sweeping our land. Obama speaks and people listen.

Yes, I made fun of Barack Obama's suggestion that we could save as much oil by simply airing up our tires and getting tune-ups as the oil companies could produce by new drilling. Yes, I utilized my second amendment rights and unleashed my rhetorical cannons on that idea. But I now have to concede that perhaps I rushed to judgment.

People are listening.

As I was driving to work this morning and listening to the Glenn Beck program on the radio (and I highly recommend him and his show) I got to noticing the other cars out there with me. I did more than notice them, I purposely looked at all the tires that were going by me, attached to those automobiles busily carrying their human cargo to school and to work. Know what I saw?

Not one under-inflated tire.

I know, I know, I know. It's hard to believe, isn't it? What has it been, only a week? Already America is listening to Obama and inflating her tires. Why, it seems like only a few weeks ago when just about everybody was driving around with a flat. But now, thanks to Barack Obama showing us a better way, people are inflating their tires and soon, and I do believe it will be soon, gas will be back down to $3, even $2 a gallon.

Feels good doesn't it?

Douglas Adams and Dirk Gently

Douglas Adams is the world-famous author of the world-famous Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. And, yes, there were five books in that trilogy. I read them in high school and, though I'm sure a lot of the satire went right over my head, I found them a delight. I read them again when in my mid-twenties and then a third time about three years ago. The first was made into a movie.

It is ironic that Adams was an atheist for, in my opinion, he was nearly a god with a pen. I absolutely adore his prose. It's not just that he's funny, he can paint a picture in a most colorful and hilarious way. He also seems to be able to find the humor in everyday characters and bring it out. As a writer I could only wish that I had the vocabulary to describe to you how great a writer I think Adams was.

Yes, was. Sadly, he is dead. Sadder still is the fact that he only wrote two novels in his Dirk Gently detective series. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul have to be the funniest books ever written. I can remember being up at 2am in my college dorm literally rolling on the floor and laughing while reading The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. I have just started reading the first one for the third time and its sequel will follow. I love these books.

Buy them. Read them. Go to your local library and check them out. Do it now!

Jupiter Rising

Friday night I was peacefully eating a bite of supper and watching a little television when I noticed my boys were busy with something out in the front yard. A few minutes later in comes my younger son Michael (5) with a little bit of a disappointed look on his face. "Dad," says he, "can you help us find the star we're trying to look at? Jimmy can't find it."

"Hold on," I told him, "I'll be out there in a minute."

Sure enough, the boys were outside with the telescope. It wasn't quite dark yet and my first reaction was to tell them that it was still too bright to see any stars. Then I noticed that one star was visible just over the horizon toward our west(?) Jimmy was busy getting frustrated because he could not get it in his viewfinder. "That's not a star, that's a planet," I said, showing off just about the sum total of my astronomical knowledge.

"I know," said Jimmy who is about to turn twelve. "That's what I wanted to look at. What planet do you think it is?"

"Probably Venus," I guessed.

So I had him bring me out a chair and I sat down and tried for a good while to find the planet in the telescope. This was not as easy as it may sound as the telescope is a bit rickety on its tripod stand and it tends to not want to stay where it is fixed. Just before it was my turn to get frustrated I struck pay dirt. There was a large, bright ball of light in my lens, but out of focus. I adjusted and it got smaller and smaller until there was a tiny planet looking back at me. I was surprised, nearly stunned actually. I had not believed that the telescope would show something that clearly. I looked again. "This is not Venus," I told Jimmy. "It's Jupiter." What surprised me is that I could see it clearly enough to distinguish which planet it was. But the identity was unmistakable. I could make out the colors and the horizontal stripes. Jupiter.

The boys took turns looking at it breathlessly. I wasn't certain, but those tiny dots which seemed to be surrounding it, could they be moons? Jimmy ran and got his star book and confirmed that, yes, Jupiter was viewable in the night sky during the month of August from just before to a few hours after dark.

What excited me was how excited they were about it. Of course, Michael is excited about anything that excites Jimmy. It's a younger brother thing. I took advantage to encourage Jimmy about a possible career field in astronomy. I want him to know that the whole world is open to him as a possibility and that his only limitations are those he places upon himself, so I'm always doing this. Michael piped up, "Yeah, and I'm going to Mars."

"You are?"

"Yeah," he said matter-of-factly. "I was watching the Backyardigans the other day and they flew to Mars in a spaceship." It was as if it were commonplace.

"Well, you just might," I told him.

The Coming Ice Age

From the April 28, 1975 issue of newsweek. I found it at Sweetness & Light.

The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Can anyone say, "radical theory change in science"? More on this to come.